Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.

He may well be.  But it's not enough.

But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.

He may well be.  But it's not enough.

But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.

Agreed... we all know that humans are not simply evil pieces of shit that do evil because they want to do evil. They all have some BiP that influences their decisions and behaviors. Most people feel bad for making bad decisions or hurting people (well minus the sociopaths and psychopaths). Empathy, however, doesn't eschew the need for the rapist taking responsibility for their actions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yes, there are certainly degrees and types of rape, and rape with an object is rape as much as rape with a penis or with fingers, and may be even more traumatic, depending on the circumstances.

There is the kind of rape that is a simple (and often predictable) betrayal of trust; "You can rub against me while we make out, but don't put it in" is, as a woman, truly putting yourself in a precarious situation where a single impulsive or even reflexive thrust can turn a lover into a rapist. I disagree with classifying that as rape, but the law and our society does. And it is hard to know sometimes where to draw the line, between rape and not-rape.

There are men who are rapists who will use the gray areas to their advantage; my ex-husband used to tickle me until I was laughing and trying to fight him off, and then it would turn into wrestling, and then it would turn into rape. I would cry, and afterwards, he would say he was sorry and that he thought we were "just playing". OK, maybe the first time, but it happened again. And again. That is also a betrayal of trust, and it made me cautious and reserved with my lovers for a very long time. Maybe even still.

Most rapes don't happen in back alleys or parks, or by strangers who creep in through the kitchen window at night. Those rapes are undeniably traumatizing and violating and often physically violent. But most rapes are done by someone you know, and placed a certain trust in, and so the rape is not only a violation but also a betrayal; that may be more traumatizing and have longer-reaching consequences than the rape itself.

Not all rape causes PTSD. My husband's repeated rape would not, in itself, have caused PTSD; what it did was trigger my PTSD from being raped when I was 15, bringing back not only the emotional reactions of fear and violation and horror and self-loathing, but also the physical reaction of pain, panic, shaking and nausea. A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes, there are certainly degrees and types of rape, and rape with an object is rape as much as rape with a penis or with fingers, and may be even more traumatic, depending on the circumstances.

There is the kind of rape that is a simple (and often predictable) betrayal of trust; "You can rub against me while we make out, but don't put it in" is, as a woman, truly putting yourself in a precarious situation where a single impulsive or even reflexive thrust can turn a lover into a rapist. I disagree with classifying that as rape, but the law and our society does. And it is hard to know sometimes where to draw the line, between rape and not-rape.

There are men who are rapists who will use the gray areas to their advantage; my ex-husband used to tickle me until I was laughing and trying to fight him off, and then it would turn into wrestling, and then it would turn into rape. I would cry, and afterwards, he would say he was sorry and that he thought we were "just playing". OK, maybe the first time, but it happened again. And again. That is also a betrayal of trust, and it made me cautious and reserved with my lovers for a very long time. Maybe even still.

Most rapes don't happen in back alleys or parks, or by strangers who creep in through the kitchen window at night. Those rapes are undeniably traumatizing and violating and often physically violent. But most rapes are done by someone you know, and placed a certain trust in, and so the rape is not only a violation but also a betrayal; that may be more traumatizing and have longer-reaching consequences than the rape itself.

Not all rape causes PTSD. My husband's repeated rape would not, in itself, have caused PTSD; what it did was trigger my PTSD from being raped when I was 15, bringing back not only the emotional reactions of fear and violation and horror and self-loathing, but also the physical reaction of pain, panic, shaking and nausea. A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.

Very well said, Nigel.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And god forbid you have any level of sympathy for your rapist, because there's no way he's a human being who feels like a piece of shit for what happened.

He may well be.  But it's not enough.

But I don't think anyone's going to argue the need for punishment.

In my case, and in the case of more than a few women I've talked to about it, I would have been satisfied if he'd had to come to a mediated meeting with me and talk it through and apologize. I would be satisfied if I could see that he understood, and even more satisfied if I could see him break down in tears.

That's all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.

I have never understood the "blame the victim" culture, which is far more widespread (through religion, etc) than the more commonsense "blame the perpetrator" mindset.

I don't find a robbery victim to be unclean.  I don't find a battered person to be unclean, or a murder victim, or any other victim of violence.  Instead, there is something unclean about people who would DO these things.

I doubt I'm the only person on PD who feels this way.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that nobody on PD considers a rape victim to be unclean or "ruined".

I realize that doesn't help much, because it's easy to SAY that we don't feel uncomfortable or that the person isn't unclean, and much harder for the victim to accept that...Or even to not feel that way while talking to people even if they DO accept it.

Some crimes are at least partially abetted by the victim; Bernie Madoff's victims come to mind.  Their unrestrained greed allowed the situation to occur, and they didn't really care how he made things happen (no way does anyone think you can get consistent 20% returns on an investment without some kind of funny business).  They were accomplices turned victim.

Some crimes, on the other hand, are solely the responsibility of the criminal who commits them, no matter if that person is a spouse, or if the victim "dressed for it", etc.  Holding the victim responsible means taking the side of the criminal.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

A post on the internet isn't the same thing as spousal rape, of course, but people who are dealing with PTSD can have it triggered by related topics, especially if they delve too graphically into the brutal reality, and that's what those kinds of warnings are for. Not everyone needs them, thank god, but it's not wrong to have consideration for those who do, especially if we want them to feel like a part of our community and not like pariahs who must stay away because they are unclean.

I have never understood the "blame the victim" culture, which is far more widespread (through religion, etc) than the more commonsense "blame the perpetrator" mindset.

I don't find a robbery victim to be unclean.  I don't find a battered person to be unclean, or a murder victim, or any other victim of violence.  Instead, there is something unclean about people who would DO these things.

I doubt I'm the only person on PD who feels this way.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that nobody on PD considers a rape victim to be unclean or "ruined".

I realize that doesn't help much, because it's easy to SAY that we don't feel uncomfortable or that the person isn't unclean, and much harder for the victim to accept that...Or even to not feel that way while talking to people even if they DO accept it.

Some crimes are at least partially abetted by the victim; Bernie Madoff's victims come to mind.  Their unrestrained greed allowed the situation to occur, and they didn't really care how he made things happen (no way does anyone think you can get consistent 20% returns on an investment without some kind of funny business).  They were accomplices turned victim.

Some crimes, on the other hand, are solely the responsibility of the criminal who commits them, no matter if that person is a spouse, or if the victim "dressed for it", etc.  Holding the victim responsible means taking the side of the criminal.

I agree completely. I think a lot of the 'blame the victim' thinking, especially when it comes to the rape of women ties directly into the male dominated culture we're still struggling to extricate ourselves from and the Judeo-Christian belief system that informed that culture. The bible clearly places some of the responsibility for rape on the woman and people who still believe that stone age trash tend to think there's at least some truth in it.

I personally find the idea abhorrent. No one is responsible for someone else enslaving them. I don't care if they're wearing a mini skirt that barely covers their butt cheeks, clothing is not a goddamned invitation.

That being said, I also agree with Nigel that some definitions of rape are not really appropriate. The example she gave is a very appropriate one... letting someone go 99% of the way and then yelling rape if the intensity of the moment leads to a mistake seems to cheapen the term (yes, I realize the irony of this statement given the slavery discussion last week). Now, I will say that it might depend on the behavior and thinking of the guy afterward ("Oh My God, I am SO Sorry!!!" vs "Well, the bitch really wanted it")... intent, empathy and taking responsibility is a big part of the equation.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue.  They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.  We edit posts or put content warnings in for Suu's spider phobia, which to ME seems silly, but to Suu, her arachnophobia is real, and produces a visceral response. Maybe Suu's response to spiders isn't as visceral as something that may trigger someone's PTSD, but I'm not going to be arrogant about it and make an assumption.   

When I was 21 and my boyfriend died of a brain heammorrage and the last spoken words I spoke with him were as he was being loaded into an ambulance, seeing ambulances freaked me the fuck out for a couple of years afterwards and put me right back into that scary feeling of helplessness I had that night. This is the closest (I think, anyway) I can get to someone's experience of a PTSD flashback, and typing this out is taking a lot of work for me, almost eleven years on, even though ambulances don't freak me out any more (which IS lucky as I have had to put my best friend in one twice now), its not easy to put myself back in that place, and I consider myself healed from that trauma, and am not subject to a visceral reaction unless I actively picture that point in time. 

Anyway, the conversation here seems to have shifted towards the victim-blaming angle, which neatly gives the opportunity to move the conversation towards rape myths, and good and bad rape prevention campaigns.

Here are some rape myths as posted on a UK parenting website. http://www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-campaign-rape-myths-busted

there are a plenty of other ones out there, such as this one http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html, and this one contains some pretty racist as well as other types of ignorant bullshit.. It's not a great list, as it doesn't account for some cases of "misreading signals" rather than a power trip, IHMO.  The "misread signals" aspect of rape IS something that can be tackled with education, as well as campaigns to outline what consent actually is, I'll let you all go over the rape myths links before I get onto that bit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue.  They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.

While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.

If there is NSFW material, I will say so.  If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example:  AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance.  I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue.  They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.

While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.

If there is NSFW material, I will say so.  If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example:  AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance.  I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).

Seems fair. I know this time I did it wrong as far as I was concerned, with the thread title not being very explicit before the edit and the body of the OP didn't explicitly spell out that it was about rape, but I assumed the full link actually spelled it out, and that didn't work out either.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow fantastic discussion... sucks I was trapped in "internet via cell phone" over the weekend

Anytime one person dominates another person and removes their freedom, its a form of slavery. It is traumatic, it is horrific and its not just because it involves penises. Though our culture and penises don't really help the situation, raping someone with an object can be just as traumatic. I appreciate Nigel's point that something like virginity isn't something we own and therefore not something that can be 'taken'. I think, though, that even if we strip away the cultural views on sex, rape would still be traumatic because it enslaves a person to the will of another, even if only temporarily.

In my experience, it wasn't the act, it was the feeling that I was powerless and had no choice that really fucked me up for awhile. The act kinda grossed me out because I was taught that anal was BADWRONG and God hated it, so it made me feel dirty. It physically hurt. Those things went away in a pretty short period of time though. The feeling that I was a weakling didn't.


ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define? Applying words like "rape" and "slavery" to things that are not rape and not slavery benefits no one. Rape is bad enough, as what it is... does it really need to be equated to slavery to have enough impact, especially considering how often slavery includes rape? They are two distinctly useful words, and not interchangeable.

I'm not trying to demean your experience, and perhaps you felt enslaved by your rape, but I am alarmed by the use of the word "slavery" in place of more appropriate descriptive words. I am fairly sure that most people who have been enslaved would not appreciate it, any more than most people who have been raped appreciate the use of the word "rape" to describe things that are not rape.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define?

This.  Right here.

There's no point in having strong words for bad things, if the scope of those bad things begins to blend together.  The words become meaningless. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue.  They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.

While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.

If there is NSFW material, I will say so.  If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example:  AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance.  I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).

Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.

And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do,  try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wow fantastic discussion... sucks I was trapped in "internet via cell phone" over the weekend

Anytime one person dominates another person and removes their freedom, its a form of slavery. It is traumatic, it is horrific and its not just because it involves penises. Though our culture and penises don't really help the situation, raping someone with an object can be just as traumatic. I appreciate Nigel's point that something like virginity isn't something we own and therefore not something that can be 'taken'. I think, though, that even if we strip away the cultural views on sex, rape would still be traumatic because it enslaves a person to the will of another, even if only temporarily.

In my experience, it wasn't the act, it was the feeling that I was powerless and had no choice that really fucked me up for awhile. The act kinda grossed me out because I was taught that anal was BADWRONG and God hated it, so it made me feel dirty. It physically hurt. Those things went away in a pretty short period of time though. The feeling that I was a weakling didn't.


ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

I'm not really comfortable with the direction of this "any loss of freedom is slavery" angle you're working. I just don't agree with it; rape is not slavery. Living in a society is not slavery. Taxes are not rape. Can we please be conscious of the way that cheapening words to make them mean less than what they were invented to define lessens them, and demeans that which they define? Applying words like "rape" and "slavery" to things that are not rape and not slavery benefits no one. Rape is bad enough, as what it is... does it really need to be equated to slavery to have enough impact, especially considering how often slavery includes rape? They are two distinctly useful words, and not interchangeable.

I'm not trying to demean your experience, and perhaps you felt enslaved by your rape, but I am alarmed by the use of the word "slavery" in place of more appropriate descriptive words. I am fairly sure that most people who have been enslaved would not appreciate it, any more than most people who have been raped appreciate the use of the word "rape" to describe things that are not rape.

You're right... I didn't intend that to come off quite that way. I meant only that while "You put your penis in me" may not really be worthy of the focus it gets in rape (but is rather due to the stupid social views of sex and morality and women as property), the forcing of someone's will over yours is... or at least it was for me. I got over the physical part, because I eventually decided God didn't hate me for being forced, but it took a lot longer to lose the feeling that I was unable to have any control over my own life.

Thinking about it now, I suspect that particular brick in my BiP may inform a lot of my views on the ideas of what freedom and slavery means... I'd never even considered that before.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm kind of disappointed that Faust bowed out of the conversation about the whole trigger warning issue.  They may be annoying for some people, but for other people they are a tool to help them decide if they can cope with the subject matter

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.

While I defend the idea of putting "trigger warnings" on threads, I will not be forced to do it myself.

If there is NSFW material, I will say so.  If it is merely an upsetting subject, then the nature of the subject (example:  AZ rape statistics, etc) will reveal the subject matter in advance.  I am most emphatically not going to put warning labels on my threads unless the thread could get someone in trouble at work (NSFW, etc).

Nobody here, as far as I can tell, wants to force anyone to do anything.

And you DO put trigger warnings on your threads, you just don't call them that. You, as many people do, tend to label potentially gut-wrenching threads in such a way that the content is clearly identifiable. You even label/hide images that might trigger my epilepsy, and anything involving graphic images of people being hurt or killed. I don't use the words "trigger warning", but I, as you do,  try to be descriptive so that nobody clicks a link or is faced with content that could land them in therapy, or cause them to have a panic attack, or get fired, or even to load content that their kids probably shouldn't see. All of these things are day to day courtesies that thoughtful people do for each other. An enslavement to society, if you will.

Okay, maybe I read it wrong.

I put warnings up because I want to.  I don't want a standard imposed.

If that wasn't the suggestion, then everyone disregard my response.